>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Gorton further noted that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “has not frozen any particular funding, denied any grant application or withheld any reimbursement from plaintiffs.”
Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Gains Momentum
The case stems from President Donald Trump’s directive ordering the Justice Department to identify all U.S. cities and towns that defy federal immigration law. Those on the list faced the possibility of losing millions in federal dollars.
Somerville and Chelsea were named in DHS’s May report, though they were later dropped from the department’s updated “sanctuary” list in August. Chelsea has proudly declared itself a “sanctuary” city, while Somerville calls itself a “welcoming city.”
Despite their political posturing, the court found their claims of financial harm speculative.
“They aver that if they do not receive the expected federal funding,” Gorton wrote, “they will have to cut necessary city staff and programs, but the timeline is obscure. … If funds are, in fact, withheld, the alleged harm can easily be remedied with a prompt injunction ordering the offending agency to ‘unfreeze’ the authorized funding.”
Millions at Stake
Court filings reviewed by the Boston Herald revealed Somerville has already lost a $4 million federal grant intended for road safety improvements, while Chelsea officials warned that law enforcement could suffer if funding for police salaries is slashed.
But the judge made clear that speculation isn’t evidence. Until funds are officially frozen, cities can’t claim injury.
“It is speculative to assume that inclusion on an agency designation list is indicative of an ‘imminent’ funding freeze,” Gorton said.
White House Fires Back
The Trump Administration celebrated the decision, calling the cities’ lawsuit “laughable.”
“It’s laughable that these sanctuary cities are pointing to ‘public safety considerations’ for justification of their decision to violate federal law and harbor criminal illegal aliens,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said. “If they were truly concerned about the safety and well-being of their residents, they would cooperate with law enforcement to get dangerous illegal criminals out of their communities.”
A Message to Defiant Cities
This ruling marks a significant setback for the open-borders movement and a major validation for Trump’s efforts to crack down on cities that shelter illegal immigrants.
While the case is far from over, the court’s message was clear: speculation and politics don’t override federal law.
For now, the Trump Administration can count this as a legal win—and “sanctuary cities” across the country have reason to worry that the tide is turning against them.
